We’re having none of that Duranty-esque commie propaganda round here. The facts of history are quite clear.

Franco was no classical liberal, but the choice faced by Spain in 1936 was as in Syria today. You can have a strong man or a genocidal madhouse. Franco saved Spain from the worst people on the planet. He saved Spain from the most murderous ideology yet known. He saved literally millions of Spanish lives. If Franco’s patriots had lost, Spain would have become a totalitarian outpost of Stalinist terror. But he won, and his great victory will always be a standing rebuke to the Marxist ideal.

On this, the 126th birthday of Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde, we remember a patriot and a country’s saviour.

A man filmed attacking a car with a large ‘zombie knife’ on a London street has been spared jail, sparking outrage and leading to the case being referred to the Attorney General.

Terrifying footage filmed on May 30th of Joshua Gardner, then 17, smashing up a car using the sword-like weapon in broad daylight on a busy street in Croydon, south London, spread on social media and shocked the nation.

He was only caught after an “eagle-eyed police officer” recognised him due to a previous conviction for attempted robbery after the footage circulated in the media, police said in a statement.

Gardner, now 18, was convicted of three charges but let off with a two-year suspended sentence at the Old Bailey on Tuesday.

The video footage of this attack was linked at ATW by me, as I recall.

Isn’t that fantastic? The invaders are taking over. The groid had a Crocodile Dundee knife, and ‘knife crime’ is being stopped, yeah(?), but the groid is allowed to walk. A white man would have been jailed and we all know it.

It doesn’t have to be an either or choice between fascism or communism. Democracy and it’s attendant freedoms is the system I’d aim for. Don’t let totalitarians tell you they are protecting you from something. In general it is just their excuse.

Remember we are talking Pete Moore here. Of course I’m his eyes the Spanish Republicans would have ushered in a regime of Stalinist Terror. Pete thinks being in the EU is Stalinist Terror, Theresa Mays govt, is Stalinist terror. Obama’s eight years were a regime of Stalinist terror. Heck, even being required to pay for a TV licence is a savage act of Stalinist terror. No wonder he supports fascism, everything else is, yes you guessed it ….

Andres Nin, the POUM leader whose arrest and disappearance spurred outcry in Barcelona, had resisted torture and was ultimately killed by agents of the Soviet Union. Nin was not alone. From the outset of Russian aid, Communist policy in Spain, answerable to Moscow, called for the elimination of rivals to Stalin’s own authoritarian brand of communism.

When a ceasefire was eventually agreed, it proved to be the prelude to a bloody purge of all opposition elements in Barcelona and elsewhere in Spain. The POUM was accused of having organised a putsch in collusion with the German, Italian and Francoist secret police. Its press was banned, Nin was arrested and the organisation outlawed. The leaders of the POUM were taken to a Stalinist prison in Madrid—a former church in Calle Atocha.

Nin himself was separated from the others and taken to Alcalá de Henares, where he was interrogated for three days. When he refused to confess to being a fascist agent, he was tortured to death. His body was buried on the outskirts of the town.

In the ensuing weeks, the Stalinist secret police rounded up all opposition elements in Catalonia, imprisoned and tortured them, and executed many thousands. A Special Tribunal for Espionage and High Treason was established to try the POUMists and Anarchists accused for their part in the insurrection. Almost all of those sent for trial in this tribunal were found guilty. Others disappeared like Nin into the secret prisons of the GPU—the so-called Preventoriums. Some 20,000 prisoners were sent to labour camps. Survivors reported sleep deprivation, denial of food, fake executions, isolation, confinement in cramped spaces, mutilation, denial of medical attention, total darkness, blinding lights, near drowning and, of course, beatings.

The repression had begun long before the May Days. Alexander Orlov, the head of the GPU in Spain, sent a number of agents into Barcelona with orders to fraternise with the POUM and identify targets for kidnapping or assassination. Erwin Wolf, Trotsky’s former secretary, was assassinated in Spain. An English volunteer, David Crook, later recalled how he was recruited from the International Brigade for special work. His account of his life gives us a good impression of how the GPU’s operations in Spain fitted into the wider counter-revolutionary campaign that had its most public face in the Moscow Trials.

When the democratic governments of the world shamefully turned their backs on Spain the Spanish had no one else to turn to but Russia. Had the democratic governments in France and Britain and else were backed Spanish democrats then there would have been no need to turn to the Stalinists.

To what extent should the democratic governments of the West in fantasy history have supported a Spanish government that was not particularly allied with them except cosmetically? Having suffered through World War I most fid not wish to escalate a civil war into an international conflict.

There was likely no need to intervene militarily. Material was largely what was needed. Soviet military support was less than 2,000 personnel. What was needed was material support. The sort of support that the United States offered the Allies before Pearl Harbour.

Aircraft, artillery, tanks, weapons etc… were what was needed. Finance was what was needed.

My (admittedly hazy) recollection of intervention in int’l law is that, prior to 1936, the convention was always when faced with an insurgency to support the recognised govt. But that changed with the non-intervention pact on Spain. In other words, as a result of appeasement.

Again, had the western governments violated the embargo who is to say the Germans would not have increased their own intervention. After the horror of WWI it is pretty smug to solve past history from an armchair in the future.

That is a question that is asked if one is willing to ignore every other historical event. The progression of German aggression in the 1930s from flaunting prior treaties, annexing various territories and outright invasion resulted in the Western Allies going from appeasement to deterrence to war. Refresher course available on request.

The governments of the day obviously couldn’t have predicted what we today know happened, but from today’s p.o.v. there should be absolutely no question that the western democracies made a terrible mistake by not getting involved on the side of the Madrid govt.

There were, however, many telling signs, and many people of insight at the time (including George Orwell) recognised it for the mistake it was. “The British are asleep to the danger, and can only be woken by the sound of falling bombs”. How right he was.

Franco and his Nazi and Italian fascist pals would have been easily beaten in 1936 if France and Britain had lent a hand. Theoretically, in fact, the civil war may not even have started, as the Spanish navy had stayed loyal to the govt and Franco could never have got his rebellion from Morocco to Spain without German help.

As it was, the Germans learned how to win and used the opportunity of Spain to hone their Blitzkrieg technique. More importantly, they came to see the western democracies as weak, who would do nothing if someone tough enough took action. This gave us WWII, the Holocaust and tens of millions dead in Europe alone.
The Allies on the other hand missed the experience of this new form of warfare and were totally overwhelmed by it 4 years later.

Also if there was no choice in 1939 why did the United States not show up for another 2 years?

Why was German aggression against Spanish democrats not worth going to war over but German aggression against a Polish dictatorship not acceptable?

You can argue that they were wrong not to intervene following the Rhineland, the Anchluss, the Sudetenland and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. That they should have intervened earlier and were wrong to not do so.

However that would also mean they were wrong not to intervene in Spain. You seem to be taking a weird line that they were wrong not to intervene in the other cases but right in Spain.

You may have heard the expression the last straw. Poland was the last straw. I invite you read up on isolation, pacifism, popular opinion in nations that had recently been engaged in a horrendous World War and did not wish to be involved in another. To condemn their decision in hindsight without any understanding seems naive to me.

Yes, it was okay to leave the Republic defenceless while fascist Germany and Italy were flooding the place with arms, personel, aircraft, tanks and heavy artillary. Even after eight months into the war when the Italian Air Force’s Legionary Air Force and Nazi Germany’s Condor Legion aerially bombarded the Basque towns of Durango and four weeks afterwards Guernica , killing hundreds, (among them priests and nuns), was this disgraceful act of craven morality allowed to continue.

Absolutely shameful that the western democracies gave the Georgian tyrant the opportunity to present himself as the defender of democracy to use for his own nefarious motives.

If the argument for non intervention was further international conflict after WWI then standing by and watching an emboldened and resurgent Germany’s military aggression against a European democracy was doubly cowardly.

Naziism, and the cause of European fascism, would have suffered a resounding defeat.

Cowardly? Who ultimately fought Germany?
There was overwhelming opposition to entering a new war in Britain and France. The slaughter of World War I was much more traumatic than people on 2018 computer keyboards seem to recall. Even removing Hitler was no guarantee of no problems down the toad, as the spread of communism was a real concern.

Both the League of Nations and their own treaties expressly called for nonintervention (no to mention their populations). I don’t think anyone could say the Nazi threat would have ended by arming Spanish Republicans.

Yes Cowardly, refusing assistance to a democracy overthrown with Nazi military backing was moral cowardice in itself.
Using the argument that intervention would create further international conflict after WWI while a country that had signed the Treaty of Versailles less than twenty years before was openly aerially carpet bombing towns loyal to the Spanish Republic was contemptibly craven.

I don’t think anyone could say the Nazi threat would have ended by arming Spanish Republicans.

And who’s saying such a thing?

What we are stating is that they would have been defeated in Spain. Whether stopping them stretching their legs would have prevented them from going for the long walk we’ll never know but the certainly would have done it from a weakened position.

To address your question I believe Noel did above and I believe the phrase spot on was used in support.

Unless I am mistaken you are suggesting Britain and France should have intervened militarily against Germany and Italy? Despite the fact that their populations were overwhelming opposed to such intervention?

To address your question I believe Noel did above and I believe the phrase spot on was used in support.

You stated that ‘the Nazi threat would have ended’ which is different to what Noel said about nazism and fascism a resounding defeat, (in Spain).

Unless I am mistaken you are suggesting Britain and France should have intervened militarily against Germany and Italy?

What I am suggesting is that western democracies slapping an arms embargo of the Spanish Republic as it was being overrun by militaristic fascism was moral cowardice and this moral cowardice was further compounded by allowing a country, which had signed the Treaty of Versailles less than twenty years before, to brazenly flaunt their military might.

If you interpret selling arms to a democratically elected government overthrown and overrun by enormous fascist miltary as intervening then yes, the US, Britain, France and all other democracies, should have intervened.

The embargo was placed on both sides. It was violated by others. There was no treaty requiring other democracies to intervene in Spain’s civil war. And leaders of democracies are required to abide by the will of their own people are they not? And there was no consensus for intervention, quite the opposite.

this moral cowardice was further compounded by allowing a country, which had signed the Treaty of Versailles less than twenty years before, to brazenly flaunt their military might.

Yes Paul, but the Germans had re-militarised the Rhineland six months before the Spanish civil war started. That was the moment for a military challenge from France and Britain, and when it failed to come Hitler knew he could press on with his agenda of destroying the Versailles settlement.

There was no treaty requiring other democracies to intervene in Spain’s civil war.

Were not talking about treaties we’re talking about doing what is right however if we’re talking about Treaties maybe you should look at the prohibitions of remilitarisation of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.

It was moral cowardice and doubly craven when Nazi Germany blatantly flaunted its military might in contravention of Versailles.

And leaders of democracies are required to abide by the will of their own people are they not?

Yeah, I mean just look at the will of the people for Britain to become involved in Iraq. So much so in fact that around 3/4 of a million people came out onto the streets to oppose it.

Someone was complaining here yesterday about a commenter putting words into someone else’s mouth and then literally arguing with himself. He was right.

Nobody’s talking about an invasion of Germany, or even necessarily a war with Germany. The Korea war didn’t mean a war with China and Vietnam didn’t lead to a war with the Soviets.
The fascist armies, Spanish, Italian and German, would have been defeated in Spain if Britain and especially France had intervened. France was the only power with a border with Spain and had probably the strongest army in Europe at the time. It took the 3 fascists powers three whole years to beat the ragtag army of the Republic. They would have had no chance against the French.

//And leaders of democracies are required to abide by the will of their own people are they not?//

Of course they’re not and they don’t.

Mahons, do you think DeValera was right to keep Ireland out of WWII entirely?

Comparing Ireland’s ‘nuetrality’ in WWII with the military coup of an electoral democracy bolstered by foreign fascist military aid, one of whom was prevented of other than defensive rearmament by one of those treaties tha you refer to above?

//War in Korea did mean war with China as many veterans of that war could tell you.//

Oh come on, mahons. You’re sounding like a Pennsylvanian with his 100-year-old war, or what was it?
The US was never at war with Communist China, I don’t care what any veterans may say.

//You seemed to imply a resounding defeat that would have avoided WW2 and the Holocaust.//

Actually, I did mean that that was a possible outcome. A determined response would have ended the Nazi presence in Spain and sent them back home. More importantly, it might also have dissuaded Hitler from his future military ambitions. After Spain, he believed the democracies would leave him alone. Even with Poland he didn’t expect Britain to declare war. Although sooner or later a confrontation was probably inevitable.

But it would at least have given France and Britain some experience of German tactics within a limited context, which would have enabled them to plan for them and counter them in the case of a major war.

It’s true what you say that the people in the west supported appeasement, and the policy wasn’t as unreasonable as it’s often made out to be. But Spain would have been a good venue to face down the Nazis while limiting the extent of the war.

Nobody knows what would have happened, but it’s interesting to speculate, as we all do.

Paul – the French were the biggest contributor to international brigades on the Republican side.

No one mentioned the IBs.

Leon Blum’s government initially agreed to help the Republic with arms sales until Anthony Eden dissuaded them fearing it would cause German and Italian intervention citing ‘The French government acted most loyally by us’ When Germany and Italy did intervene the French and British, previously worried about German and Italian intervention, sat on their hands.

Did the signitories of the Versaille Treaty have an obligation to enforce it?, (not to mention of course the other 27 of the 29 countries that signed the no intervention Agreement having a moral obligation to act after Italy and Germany broke it).

We’re talking about the Spanish Civil War and those who enacted a Non Intervention Agreement and then sat on their hands while those who they supposedly enacted the Treaty to stop intervening intervened while the other signitories did nothing, not Ihe Irish people’s attitude to it.

A moral obligation to enforce a non intervention treaty if breached by one of the signatories? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe there was a clause that could be so construed.

Tht’s why I spoke about moral obligations as opposed to Agreement obligations. To enact a Non Intervantion Agreement because you’re worried about two of the signitories to the Agreement intervening and then do nothing as they disregard they Agreement you were instrumental in enacting is the absolute height of moral cowardice.

We are talking about a lot of things, you aren’t interested in things that don’t fit your narrative.

I’m talking about the cowardly non intervention by democracies as the Spanish democratically elected government was violently overthrown and then Spain flooded with fascist ‘non intervention’ arms and personel and despite your attempts to introduce straw men and red herrings I’m still talking about non intervention by democracies in Spain as democracy is overthrown and suppressed.

And with that I bid you goodnight. I’ll come back to this tomorrow if need be.

//China lost approximately 180,000 soldiers fighting in the Korean War. Over a million served there. No charge for the history lesson.//

Mahons, if you think that a situation where 2 foreign countries losing soldiers in a third country means that they are in a state of war, then it’s not a history lesson you need as much as a lesson in common sense.

Sitting on your hands while others disregard the Agreement you enacted and do the very thing that the Agreement was supposedly enacted to prevent them doing and not enforcing the terms of an International Agreement isn’t only supreme moral cowardice, it’s also abjectly humiliating.

I thought you’d go that road once the facts of the matter were stated Mahons. Unsurprising if somewhat disappointing.

The fact is that refusing to sell arms to a elected government wanting to defend itself from a country flooding it with military hardware and personnel contrary to an International Agreement was moral cowardice and abject humiliation no matter how you try to square it.

There are two issues at hand here Mahons, an International Agreement and an International Treaty.

To enact an International Agreement in order to prevent an action and then not act while two signitories to that agreement , to the detriment of a third party, flagrantly do that which the agreement was expressly supposed to prevent them from doing was an act of moral cowardice.

One of the signitories of that International Agreement was also subject to an International Treaty which prevented it from rearming outside defensive arms. They blatantly flaunted this International Treaty obligation and lack of those treaty co signitories response to this blatant disregard of this accord was both cowardly and humilitating.

Pedantic is demonstrated by your constant repetition of your baseless claims. Had a signatory responded to a violation of the international agreement of nonintervention by intervening themselves in reprisal then they too would have been in violstion. In regard to a treaty violation

There is no legal obligation to seek to enforce it militarily. Diplomatic means such as deterence, containment, mediation and international arbitration are all means to seek resolution prior to war. To hold otherwise is to suggest nations unilaterally escalate tensions to the point of warfare whenever violations occur which would result in a constant state of war.

Surely the point is the very signing of the non-intervention agreement was morally wrong given certain signatories were already intervening on behalf of the insurgents and thus it only worked to the detriment of the elected govt.

Firstly Mahons, it was you that brought the obligations of treaties and agreements into the equation above, I’m just following on from your point.

Now, there are two elements to the points I make above and you seem to be conflating both so let me speall them out:

The was an International Agreement on non intervention enacted largely at the instigation of Britain, (before you start, this isn’t ‘big bad Britain’, it’s irrefutable fact), as can be seen by Anthony Eden’s comment above. Now, this non intervention was based expressly on the fear both Italy and Germany would intervene and the conflict might escalate. When Italy and Germany did exactly that I would argue that the agreement was then void and those responsible for effectuating the non intervention agreement had a moral responsibility to then assist the beseiged democracy and to not do this was an act of moral cowardice.

Now, I will concede that this a subjective opinion and open to discussion but would expect most fair minded people to come to the same conclusion.

What I won’t concede is that by blatantly pouring industrial quantities of tanks, arms, aircraft, heavy artillary and military personnel into Spain Germany was flagrantly and absolutely in violation of Article 231 of the Treaty of Versaille and to not act on that infraction of an International Treaty not only was an act of superlative cowardice but it also turned a Nelsonian eye to a calculated act of abject humiliation.

As we speak the Irish Navy speeds towards North Korea which has violated International Law by threatening democracies and the Irish Army marches on Damascus to punish Syria for violating International agreements banning the use of chemical weapons….

No it wasn’t so let me make this clear, there are two elements to the point I make:

Now, there are two elements to the points I make above and you seem to be conflating both so let me speall them out […]

I subjectively believe that non intervention in the wake of the breach of the non intervention agreement was moral cowardice.

The Versaille Treaty was an International Treaty signed in the wake of WWI and Nazi Germany was blatantly in breach of it. Wars have been started for less and those co signitories did absolutely nothing, craven cowardice in the face of deliberate humiliation.

I’ve commented on the treaties.

Now let me ‘answer’ in the same vein as your own:

Did you? I doubt it.

You’ve deliberately coverged two seperate elements to generally coment on the subjective morality of one whilst ignoring the potential official sanctions for transgression an International Treaty on another.

I’ll happily deal with your accusations of my alleged dishonesty and disingenuousness if you can point me in the direction of them

There was no legal or moral requirement imposed by the nonintervention agreement of the tray of Versailles for any signatory to engage in military action to punish any other signatory who violated either.

There was a moral requirement on those who initiated the Non Intervention Agreement to act once those who violated the specific issues that the agreement was enacted to prevent did precisely that.

If you’re telling me that there was no requirement for the League of Nations to, at a very minimal, impose economic sanctions on Germany as Germany was in blatant and flagrant breach of Versailles, (which included the League of Nations Covenant), Art 231 when German aircraft were carpet bombing Basque towns then I say that you’re simply incorrect.

In terms of Versailles non action both before and during the Spanish Civil War was craven cowardice and capitulation to aggressive humiliation.

Germany had pulled out of the League of Nations by that time, and I am not sure if the League’s charter provided any enforcement protocols as to earlier treaties. Certainly sanctions were something to be considered. How effective they might have been are questionable.

Pacifism and disarmament were strongly supported in the UK and France at that time. Both had significantly reduced their armed forces, the UK in particular was overstretched. Neville’s peace in our time was greated with jubilation. Spain was not an ally, it’s democracy untested and sending it arms or even intervening militarily would have brought down the government.

Germany was bound by Versaille which included the League of Nations Covenant and both Italy and Spain were members of the LON in 1936. The effectiveness of sanctions is a moot point and they weren’t enforced.

As I said, an act of craven cowardice and capitulation to aggressive humiliation.

Germany was bound by Versaille which included the League of Nations Covenant and both Italy and Spain were members of the LON in 1936.

The effectiveness of sanctions is a moot point and they weren’t enforced.

Yes, perhaps in your mind the LON doing nothing in the face of German airplanes bombing Basque Towns contrary to the terms of Versailles and Germany and LON member Italy attacking LON member Spain while the other LON members did absolutely nothing wasn’t cowardly capitulation to military aggressive humiliation.

David Vance Live 21.1.19. Topics. Plan B for banjaxed? Irish terrorism to stop Brexit? Native American and fake new… pscp.tv/w/bxYgbzI0OTEx…

THE PRICE OF REWARDING TERRORISM

You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.

Copyright & copy; 2010 A Tangled Web (All rights reserved).Comments on articles here are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of A Tangled Web or David Vance. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable may be deleted by the Editor. However the fact a particular comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by David Vance of the views expressed therein.